Transcription

1 Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED September 19, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk In re: GLAY H. COLLIER, II Petitioner Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:11-CV Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Glay H. Collier, II ( Collier ), a Louisiana licensed attorney practicing consumer bankruptcy law, filed this petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court s imposition of a forty-eight hour jail sentence for his civil contempt of court. After this emergency mandamus petition was filed, we stayed the execution of the sentence pending our review on the merits. We now GRANT Collier s petition and issue a Writ of Mandamus VACATING the district court s order. I. The order in question arises out of an action that was pending in the * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R

2 Case: Document: Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2014 Western District of Louisiana, Wheeler v. Collier. 1 In that case, a client ( Wheeler ) sued Collier, along with his law partner and law firm, for mishandling client funds in violation of 11 U.S.C. 362(a) and 524. In response to the complaint, Wheeler moved for summary judgment. On May 22, 2014, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wheeler on the merits of the 362 claim. Regarding the 524 claim, the court held that it had the power to punish a violation of 524 under 11 U.S.C The court deferred deciding the merits of the 524 claim in order to hold a hearing. The court held that hearing on July 14, The court entered a contempt order under 105, finding that Collier violated 524. The district court imposed fines and ordered Collier to cease all advertising for no money down Chapter 7 bankruptcy legal services. The court set a deadline of July 21, 2014 for Collier to stop all advertisements for these services. On July 23, 2014, the district court ordered Collier to show cause as to why he should not be held in civil contempt, including fines and confinement, for violating [the] court s [July 14th] [o]rder requiring him to stop the advertisements. 3 The hearing was set for July 28, At the July 28th hearing, Collier appeared with counsel. Testimony was produced that revealed that Collier had stopped all television advertisements by the July 21st deadline. However, five different websites, which included twenty-eight individual advertisements within those pages, were active after 1 U.S.D.C. No. 5:11-cv The parties agreed that 524 did not provide a private cause of action. 11 U.S.C. 105 states in pertinent part, The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process. 3 (emphasis added). 2

3 Case: Document: Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/19/2014 the deadline. Three of the websites were taken down on July 23, The advertisements on the other two websites, which allegedly violated the court s July 14th order, remained in place through the morning of the hearing. Collier was successful in stopping one of the advertisements during the hearing. He was unable, however, to stop the last advertisement by the time the hearing concluded. Collier, through counsel, informed the court that he had taken all available steps to cease the final advertisement. First, Collier had his advertising agency call a representative of the website and request the advertisement be removed. A representative of Collier s advertising agency testified that the website representative informed him it usually takes between twenty-four and forty-eight hours to remove an advertisement from the website. Additionally, Collier s attorney stated in open court that he and Collier spoke with a representative of the website and requested the advertisement be removed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court ruled: After deliberation and consideration of the number of violations, as well as the defendant s direct disregard for the authority of the Court and its July 14, 2014 order mandating that the parties McBride & Collier and Glay H. Collier, II, were held in contempt of court under Section 105 in the Wheeler versus Collier matter, the Court further directed the defendants to remove all advertisements of Chapter 7 No Money Down consumer bankruptcies. As a result of the violation of this Court s order, without any reasonable excuse other than I forgot, Glay H. Collier is hereby ordered into the custody of the U.S. Marshal Service for a period of 48 hours for the violations of this Court s previous contempt order regarding the removal of advertising of Chapter 7 consumer bankruptcy under the heading of No Money Down. 3

4 Case: Document: Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/19/2014 The district court then remanded Collier to the custody of the U.S. Marshal to begin service of his sentence. This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus followed, seeking review of this order. 4 II. The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations. 5 The writ is appropriately issued when there is a clear abuse of discretion or judicial usurpation by the court against which mandamus is sought. 6 III. Collier argues that the issuance of the writ is proper in this case, because the district court imposed a criminal sentence without providing the proper procedural protections. It is clear, argues Collier, that the contempt order was criminal in nature and not civil. Collier points out that the district court explicitly noted the hearing was for civil contempt in its July 23rd order and on the record during the hearing, but then the district court levied a punitive fixed term of imprisonment which is ordinarily only proper for criminal contempt. Before a writ of mandamus can be issued, three conditions must be satisfied. 7 First, the petitioner must have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires Second, the petitioner [must] satisfy the burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and undisputable. 9 Finally,... the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied 4 Collier seeks review of a separate part of this order through another petition for a writ of mandamus filed on September 9, 2014, No In re Times Picayune, L.L.C., 561 F. App x 402, 402 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)). 6 Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). 7 Id. 8 Id. (alteration in original). 9 Id. at 381 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). 4

5 Case: Document: Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/19/2014 that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. 10 As to the first condition, we are satisfied that Collier has no other adequate means to attain the relief he seeks. As indicated, Collier was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal following the hearing to serve his sentence. Due to the nature of the forty-eight hour jail sentence and the obvious time restrictions to obtain relief, Collier has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires. Next, Collier must show that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and undisputable. Under the Cheney standard, If the district court clearly abused its discretion... [in imposing an unconditional forty-eight hour prison sentence for civil contempt,] then [Collier s] right to issuance of the writ is necessarily clear and indisputable. 11 To determine whether the district court clearly abused its discretion in its order, we must first consider whether the contempt proceeding and the punishment imposed was civil or criminal in nature. Contempt is characterized as either civil or criminal depending upon its primary purpose. 12 If the purpose of the sanction is to punish the contemnor and vindicate the authority of the court, the order is viewed as criminal. If the purpose of the sanction is to coerce the contemnor into compliance with a court order, or to compensate another party for the contemnor s violation, the order is considered purely civil. Imprisonment is an appropriate remedy for either civil or criminal contempt, depending on how it is assessed. If the prison term is conditional and coercive, the character of the contempt is civil; if it is backward-looking and unconditional it is criminal Id. 11 In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 12 In re Bradley, 588 F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir. 2009). 13 Id. (internal citations omitted). 5

6 Case: Document: Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/19/2014 While a court s characterization of its proceedings is a factor to be considered in determining the type of contempt, it is not conclusive. 14 Determining the difference between criminal and civil contempt is crucial because the law provides heightened protections for punitive criminal contempt. 15 Governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, criminal contempt must be accompanied with notice to the contemnor either in open court, an order to show cause, or an arrest warrant. 16 This notice must state the time and place of the trial, allow the defendant reasonable time to prepare a defense, and state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such. 17 The rule also requires the contempt citation be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, or another attorney. 18 Finally, the contemnor is entitled to a jury trial in any case where federal law so provides. 19 In addition to procedural differences, there are evidentiary differences. [C]ivil contempt orders must satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard, while criminal contempt orders must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. 20 In the present case, the district court, in its order for Collier to show cause, identified the hearing as civil contempt. Additionally, the hearing transcript reflects two separate occasions where the district court judge orally confirmed the hearing was a civil contempt proceeding. Notwithstanding the district court s own characterization, it is clear to 14 Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1119 (5th Cir. 1976). 15 United States v. Puente, 558 F. App x 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). 16 Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(1). 17 Id. (emphasis added). 18 Id. 19 Id.; Rule 42(b) which provides for summary disposition if contempt is committed in the judge s presence does not apply here. 20 Puente, 558 F. App x at 341 (internal citation omitted). 6

7 Case: Document: Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/19/2014 us that the proceeding and sanction should be characterized as criminal rather than civil. First, the sanction was for an unconditional term of imprisonment. This amounts to a punitive sanction for past violations of the order, not to coerce Collier into compliance. Second, the evidence presented at the hearing does not show that Collier could have taken additional steps to comply with the court s order by the time he was remanded into custody. He had all advertisements removed except one, and the termination of the final advertisement was just a matter of time. Even the court acknowledged that removal of the final advertisement was in progress. Third, in its reasoning, the district court cited the violation of the court s order (not the continued non-compliance) as the basis for its finding of civil contempt. Finally, even if the district court could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Collier willfully violated the court s order, there is no indication in the record that the district judge made that determination or that he weighed the evidence against that heightened standard. As a result, we are satisfied that the primary purpose of the contempt order was to punish the contemnor and vindicate the authority of the court. The contempt order is criminal in nature. Because the district court failed to provide the proper procedural protections, Collier has shown that his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and undisputable. Finally, in order for us to issue this extraordinary remedy, we must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Given that Collier s liberty was taken away without the benefit of the procedural protections provided by law, and due to the immediacy of the punishment, we are satisfied that the writ must be issued in this case. IV. The district court clearly abused its discretion when it held Collier in 7

8 Case: Document: Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/19/2014 criminal contempt without providing him the procedural protections required by law. We, therefore, GRANT Collier s petition and issue a Writ of Mandamus VACATING the district court s July 28, 2014 order finding Collier in contempt and imposing a forty-eight hour jail sentence. We leave to the district court entry of any further order necessary to effectuate our ruling. 8

Opinion issued April 19, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00361-CV FREDDIE L. WALKER, Appellant V. RISSIE OWENS, PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 10, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee,

A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement

Case: 10-30447 Document: 00511371693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D February 3, 2011 Lyle

Case 1:14-mc-20938-CMA Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2014 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. COLLEY

Article 89. Motion for Appropriate Relief and Other Post-Trial Relief. 15A-1411. Motion for appropriate relief. (a) Relief from errors committed in the trial division, or other post-trial relief, may be

Section 15-23-60 Definitions. As used in this article, the following words shall have the following meanings: (1) ACCUSED. A person who has been arrested for committing a criminal offense and who is held

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 12-4411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL TIMOTHY MALONEY, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of

SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado

TIPS FOR HANDLING FEDERAL CRIMINAL APPEALS By Henry J. Bemporad Deputy Federal Public Defender Western District of Texas Like any field of law, criminal appellate practice is an inexact science. No one

Case: 14-50895 Document: 00513153752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED August 13, 2015 ANA GARCIA

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JUVENILE COURT DEPARTMENT JUVENILE COURT RULES FOR THE CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN Rule 1. Scope of Rules These rules apply to all actions in the Juvenile Court Department

NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 130903-U NO. 4-13-0903

Filed 9/25/96 PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-3409 GERALD T. CECIL, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILIN COMPLAINT BY PRISONERS UNDER THE CIVIL RIHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. 1983 This packet contains two copies of a complaint form and

2014 IL App (1st) 120762-U No. 1-12-0762 FIFTH DIVISION February 28, 2014 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 10, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D09-2044 Lower Tribunal No. 06-33761-B John Santiago,

Article 23. Workplace Violence Prevention. 95-260. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Article: (1) Civil no-contact order. An order granted under this Article, which includes a remedy

Proposed New Pa.R.Crim.P. 1037 and Revisions to the Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462 INTRODUCTION The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopt

Case 1:12-cv-00547-CWD Document 38 Filed 12/30/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ALBERT MOORE, v. Petitioner, Case No. 1:12-cv-00547-CWD MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

INFORMATION ABOUT ORDERS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST STALKING AND HARASSMENT AND ORDERS FOR PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ISSUED IN JUSTICE COURT (1) What are the definitions of stalking, harassment, and harm to minors?

Case: 15-10510 Document: 00513424063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 15, 2016 Lyle W.

INMATE FORM FOR CIVIL ACTIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA INSTRUCTIONS READ CAREFULLY (NOTE: OCGA 9-10-14 (a) requires the proper use of this form, and failure to use this form as required will

DELAWARE COUNTY REGULATIONS FOR NON-PUBLIC WATER WELLS ORDINANCE NO. zo Pursuant to the authority granted the Delaware County Supervisors under Chapter 331 county home rule, of the Code ofiowa and by the

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0675n.06 No. 14-6537 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERELL BUFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ROBERT E. WHEELER, Respondent, Appellant. WD76448 OPINION FILED: August 19, 2014 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Caldwell County,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONALD LYLE STRATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JULIE BUCK, in her individual capacity; DALE BROWN, in his individual capacity; JOHN DOE,

2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-30-2009 Robert Jackson v. US Bankruptcy Ct Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3186 Follow

The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and orders of this court the document set forth below. This document was signed electronically on January 28, 2009, which

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRAIG ALLEN LADWIG, No. 04-30393 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. CR-03-00232-RHW Defendant-Appellant. OPINION

Case: 15-10426 Document: 00513359912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CYNTHIA TREVINO GARZA, Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3489 United States of America, Appellee, v. Keith A. Jones, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY THE STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff, vs. Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense) COMES NOW the above-named Defendant

LR2-400. Case management pilot program for criminal cases. A. Scope; application. This is a special pilot rule governing time limits for criminal proceedings in the Second Judicial District Court. This

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 121065-U Order filed

YOUR RIGHTS AT TRIAL You have certain rights once your case is set to go to trial. Prior to entering a plea, you have the option to view all documents in your case, excluding those documents ordered withheld

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED March 3, 2016 No. 15-11188 In re: AMERICAN LEBANESE SYRIAN ASSOCIATED CHARITIES, INCORPORATED;

Supreme Court of New Jersey A Guide to Filing for Litigants without Lawyers Office of the Clerk November 2014 Introduction This Guide gives you basic information on how to file papers in the Supreme Court.

Case 1:08-cr-00223-DAE Document 315 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 7322 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Plaintiff-Respondent. DAVID OPOLLO

In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13-1142 For the Seventh Circuit LARRY BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court

In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13-1186 For the Seventh Circuit IN RE: JAMES G. HERMAN, Debtor-Appellee. APPEAL OF: JOHN P. MILLER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 07-99-26-5 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER GOVERNING A COLLECTIONS COURT PROGRAM IN ORANGE COUNTY

Case: 15-30341 Document: 00513367001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JAMES L. MOSS, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals Fifth

ENROLLED Regular Session, 1997 HOUSE BILL NO. 2412 BY REPRESENTATIVE JACK SMITH AN ACT To enact Chapter 33 of Title 13 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 13:5301 through 5304,

Case: 10-30886 Document: 00511566112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 9, 2011 Lyle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) ) PETITION TO ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY (Misdemeanor) I,, respectfully represent

130 Nev., Advance Opinion 7 IN THE THE STATE SERGIO AMEZCUA, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL KAREN BATTLE, Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District

No. 09-113 In the Supreme Court of the United States JIM G. PRICE, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

12-1484-cv Hyde v. KLS Professional Advisors Group, LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY

Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Note that not every case goes through all of the steps outlined here. Some states have different procedures. I. Pre-Trial Crimes that would

Filed 6/30/16 P. v. Rosser CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res

Utah UCCJEA Utah Code Ann. 78-45c-101 et seq. 78-45c-101. Title This chapter is known as the "Utah Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act." 78-45c-102. Definitions As used in this chapter:

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 30, 2011 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,